On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:59:20PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> On 04 Jul 2011, at 6:48 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> >It's incumbent on you to provide specific technical objections if
> >vetoing code, not this hand-waving "objections must exist because
> >of X".
>
> I have already done so. If you disagree with the objection, or do
> not understand the objection, engage the objection directly so it
> can be resolved.
I've done exactly that twice in this thread. I have not seen any
attempt to concisely express a specific technical objection, rather than
this hand-waving stuff about "inappropriateness", and how the API is
"wrong", how we must necessarily reject code because of the APR vote,
and how it does not solve a problem which you say will be solved better
by reimplementing the code in APR.
If you don't have specific technical objections (and hence, any reason
for veto) then you should just offer up an alternative solution and we
can have a consensus vote to pick one, and move on.
> We are not discussing the removal of apr_ldap from APR, we are
> discussing the addition of ap_ldap to httpd.
I only engaged in the discussion about the removal of the code from APR
because you explicitly called that out as motivation for your veto:
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@httpd.apache.org/msg51396.html
"I have already stated the basis for the veto: every single apparent
flaw in the apr_ldap code that caused wrowe to remove it from APR is
still present in the code that wrowe dumped into httpd."
So if that is not the basis of your veto after all, let's drop it. But
I am no closer to understanding the basis for veto.
> In the case of MacOSX, it breaks for me as follows:
>
> checking whether to enable mod_authnz_ldap... checking dependencies
> checking whether to enable mod_authnz_ldap... configure: error:
> mod_authnz_ldap has been requested but can not be built due to
> prerequisite failures
Did you build with --with-ldap as well? If so, can you post the
complete config.log?
Regards, Joe